View Single Post
nannyde 06:34 PM 05-31-2015
This program is VERY expensive. If you break the calendar down and look at the total number of hours the kids are there per week over the weeks they are actually open it's a fraction of the hours kids are normally in care.

They have 2.5 hours two or three times a week for about 32 weeks. The hourly rate is VERY high AND the parents have to attend one day per week for their kids session PLUS have many meetings, voluntary work weekends, donations to their auctions, clean up days etc. They have SO many adults there every session.

Of course your kid can paint themselves, swing when they want, climb, play with small pieces when there are a TON of adults to host them AND the cost is SO high.

From what I can see they are in session about a month a year in comparison to a full time daycare kid who attends 10 hour days all year around. By the first week of February the full time kid would be in daycare the same number of hours as a Bev kid spends all school year.

It's about $10.50 an hour for the three day a week kids and about $12 an hour for the two day a week kids IF the parent is onsite one day a week and does a TON of off school volunteering.

If the parent doesn't want to work for free it's nearly double that hourly rate.

The parents who work only have a few hours of coverage a week. They have to pay a super high rate for Bevs and pay for full time daycare if they work.

It looks like a wonderful experience but I can't see where a fraction of it is applicable to home child care. We can't command an hourly rate of 10 to 24 bucks an hour and be open an average of a few weeks a year.

Bev hasn't franchised. Why? That model would be nearly impossible to replicate in any normal child care setting.

I don't see it as any different than comparing it to an amusement park experience. It's just way more expensive.

I would LOVE for my kid to have an experience like that but I could only afford it as I could to send him to six flags or disney. It's just too expensive for average people.
Reply